How Far Can Gliders Glide? Planes vs Sailplanes vs Space Shuttle vs Bird vs Paraglider vs HangGlider

What has the worlds best glide ratio? Is it a bird or a glider? or something else?! Join us on a deep dive of things in this world that glide and how far they can glide.
Some birds such as the Albatross have enormous wings to help them glide further. But the wings on a plane are much much larger, but they are also heavier. So which will be able to glide further?
All the glide ratios mentioned are best case examples, and rely on still air, with no propulsion from an engine. The configuration of the wings might i.e. flaps or slats, or landing gear will change the glide ratio too.
Gliding TShirts and More Coming Soon
pureglide.nz/
SkySight weather forecasting discount coupon code: ONEMONTHFREE for TWO(!!) months discount off your first year of subscription. Yes we will update the coupon code sometime!
skysight.io/?coupon=ONEMONTHFREE
Equipment Used to Make this Video:
GoPro Hero 8 amzn.to/3kvPZZc
(Hero 9 now available! amzn.to/33HOOyT )
Sony ZV-1 amzn.to/2FRAF9Y
SPOT 3 Satellite Tracker amzn.to/307w8rB
iPhone 12 Pro Max amzn.to/3hjBbMU
00:00 Introduction
00:22 Glide Ratio Comparisons
08:08 The best glider in the World!
09:43 Conclusion

[@headcrab980]

The ISS: hold my beer 🍺

[@PureGlide]

😂

[@kwlkid85]

I'm sure it's glide ratio is in the millions+ to 1 but it would fall to the ground eventually without it's semi-frequent reboosts up to altitude.

[@kwlkid85]

Actually scratch that as it's in a circular orbit so depending on how you measure it you could say it's glide ratio is roughly 1:1, it's just its moving so fast that by the time it would have descended down the earth is no longer in that direction.

[@oggyoggy1299]

@@kwlkid85 1:1? I’d say it’d drop like a stone. Closer to 1:0.

[@kwlkid85]

​@@oggyoggy1299 You either don't understand what I said or don't know what an orbit is. Also you mean 0:1 not 1:0.

[@arthurfowler3766]

Talking about the limiting factor the roll rate. Hanglider pilots, thermals averaged as large as typically a big house. The largest I incountered was N East of Ventura, Pine mountain a cross country spot. Bigger than a stadium, my verio was pegged but it was twice I have ever encountered . You get to cloud base. You encounter cloud suck. So now you can race around full speed bar down to your thigh. 45 Mikes a hour , air speed. Three dimensional fun. Flown with eagles under my wing. Mom and kid. The kid showed off and looped me three times. Then looked at me. He was showing me I wasn't shit. It was the coolest thing I have ever seen. Thanks Mr. ROGELLO. I wanted to fly from when I was 5. I would climb a tree approximately 60 feet tall. I was small. I could get near the top. The wind would blow I would sway. The birds would fly by. I knew then. I WOULD fly like a bird. Just another fortunate American could finding his dearest dreams. My Wills Wing Sport was made in 86 . Anyway...

[@scyz2807]

I really wish I had found this video two years ago! I fly hang gliders and think your 16:1 figure is correct or very close to the specs of the best competition hang gliders made today. But here's something that will be fun to relay. Back in the mid 1980s, I flew a Wills Wing Harrier 147 (it had an approx 7:1 glide), while waiting for delivery of a new hang glider. One nice day I was flying above the ridge about 20 miles NE of Wurtsboro, NY - which has some nice sailplane activity. Well, I was flying along and a sailplane approached my location. I was either in a thermal or found one as the sailplane approached. The Harrier had this amazing ability to fly slow in a fairly high banked 360. Knowing this I centered myself in the core and proceeded to go up. Well, the sailplane got the picture and started to core the same thermal. Unfortunately, the sailplane (not a low performance model) could not get its turn radius anywhere near as tight as mine and I was out climbing it very nicely! I learned from that experience that sailplanes with "super" performance can, at times, be left behind by a simpler more basic glider. I've also done a bit of XC flying and can glide further knowing that that "tiny" field up ahead is big enough for me to land in if I don't catch a thermal before getting there. If I were in a sailplane I may have had to land 10 miles back at a nice safe large flat field.

[@PureGlide]

Yeah thermals aren't much use if you're flying around the outside of them! I like the flaps in my glider so I can get pretty slow and tight too, but paragliders still outclimb me sometimes :)

[@MENSA.lady2]

1 in 7 ?? I would prefer a parachute.

[@scyz2807]

@@MENSA.lady2 Really? A sky diver's parachute may have a 4 to 1 glide. They aren't meant to glide, just keep you from hitting the ground too hard.

[@JasonBlack66]

Another way to look at it and the way it was explained to me by a world champion Glider Pilot and my instructor Ingo Renner the ratio simply means for every X amount of Meters traveled forwards you will lose 1 Meter of Altitude. I.e. 45:1 means for every 45 meters traveled forwards you will lose 1 meter of height, whereas 8:1 means for every 8 meters forward you will lose 1 meter of height/altitude. The best modern gliders are usually between 35:1 to 60:1 but there are a few going all the way up to 70:1 which is absolutely incredible. Various factors contribute to this in gliders, how much life is experienced along the way (or Sink) how much weight is in the cockpit, and is it a single seat or 2 seats. Carrying Water Ballast etc. These Glide Ratios boasted by Sailplane manufacturers are theoretical Ratios. this is because small amounts of lift and sink can be experienced along the way. even in calm morning conditions, there can be minute amounts that a human can not even feel. So it's kind of hard to test in a real flight environment. I suppose wind tunnel testing with aerofoil could give better data but I know nothing at all about that.

[@SilntObsvr]

The old joke about the Space Shuttle Orbiter was that it had the glide ratio of a cast iron Frisbee. And yeah, "only" a quarter million NZ dollars. That's about the cost of a traditional family house in a less expensive neighborhood here in the US. It is worth noting that minimum sink rate enters into thermal and cross country performance as well. Here in the States, it's fairly common for the better performing hang gliders and even "Air Chair" gliders (like the G.O.A.T. series) to do multi-hour thermal and ridge flights from a foot or hill roll launch, and accomplish cross country tasks as well. A G.O.A.T. doesn't have an awesome glide ratio, but it's *slow,* so minimum sink is quite low. Might take a long time to make a 100 km cross country -- but it'll climb in a whisper of a thermal.

[@Trevor_Austin]

That was a really great presentation. May I also add something to your numbers regarding airliners. We typically allow 3 (nautical) miles per thousand feet. So that will be a glide ratio of 18:1. But this is an ‘economic’ value. It’s a value that (very, very roughly) takes into account maintenance costs, navigation charges, schedule, missed connections and the minimal fuel (plus the closing time of the bar). So for me a typical descent would start at M0.72-0.78 changing to 270/290 kts at idle power. A best glide, idle (or zero thrust) would be done at 190 kias (depending on weight could be at much as 215) and yield a decent (or sink) rate of around 800 fpm. Therefore my aircraft could easily achieve 24-25:1. But we don’t do this unless we are really, really early. Believe it or not, both engines out requires a greater speed to keep the fans turning for a quicker relight and/or to turn the RAT (Ram Air Turbine).

[@schr75]

You forgot a mailbag. It has a glide ratio of 10:1. The Lockerbie Bombing of Pan Am flight 103 happened at aprox. 10km altitude, and a mailbag was found 100km from the site, giving it a glide ratio of 10:1.

[@PureGlide]

Haha that's great. Everything has a glide ratio if you give it a chance :)

[@ActionHeinz]

A terrible act of terrorism that cost over 250 lives. And by the way... Something blown out by an explosion doesn't really count as glide ratio.

[@soliv27]

I'd like to see the shape of the mailbag, 'lifting bodies' having probably not better ratio than a space shuttle. Their shapes are precise.. There must be something to do with jetstream, cumulonimbus, or a different explanation like several explosions

[@ryancnayr]

@@ActionHeinz to an extent yes you’d need to factor in the propulsion gained from the explosion. However at a big distance such as 100km away, you can assume the main candidate is the fact it had to glide the majority to get to its final stop

[@stewartcampbell7794]

Wind's A-Loft May have Changed Decent Vector on it's Way 2 Ground Zero !? Sky-Div'in 101 ; At Altitude , Chuck the Roll of T-p to Help Judge Wind's A-Loft & Vector's . Wind's can Carry U Some 5 - 10 KM Easily Just as a Boat is Subject 2 it's Current's of the Water's ! YYZ , Mohawk-Planker . Fly - On & 5 by 5 ...

[@ParapentePuraVidaCostaRica]

Do not forget wingsuits... bigger ones can get 3:1 or even a bit more!! Congrats, great glide chart!!!

[@PureGlide]

Good point! Yeah I should have added them! Cheers

[@iangordon1371]

I restored a gull wing 1935 vintage glider - 2 seater Kranich I designed by Hans Jacobs. It had an L/D of 23:1 but flew 2 flights of 7hrs 30 mins one weekend. Currently fly a 172 and at 8:1 keep an eye open for suitable fields!

[@PureGlide]

Awesome!

[@SilntObsvr]

As I noted in another comment, thermal performance is about minimum sink as much as glide ratio. Modern competition tasks are all about speed, and that's where glide ratio is king -- but if you don't care how long it takes to get from A to B (within arriving in daylight, of course) or you're just flying around having fun, those pre-War gliders can still do the job. And there's that cool factor you can't get with "yet another fiberglass pod and boom glider."

[@gliderfs621]

The Sud Aviation Caravelle is known for having the best glide ratio of all airliners. She have more than 23:1 glide ratio, which is similar to many gliders of its time. A test of its capacities have been made where the plane climbed to 41 000 feets over Paris and then glide to the city of Dijon with engines sets to idle. The distance between the cities is roughly 260 km.

[@PureGlide]

That’s awesome!

[@otsokivivuori7726]

Birds have the advantage of being really light and so being able to use much weaker lift than human-carrying gliders

[@monas4734]

I think more important is the minimum radius for a full circle. A Bird can use the smallest bubble of uprising air whereas a gilder needs a cylinder with, i guess, at least 80 meters in diameter.

[@xistsixt]

same as paraglider VS sailplane, we have a much lower glide ratio, but with the slow speed and low wing load you can turn thermals which are not relevant to sailplanes.

[@PureGlide]

Yes very true!

[@PureGlide]

Yes I've come under paragliders that appear to be staying up and not found a bean worth stopping in! Saying that, that short clip of the paraglider I managed to thermal with and almost kept up with his climb rate...

[@NeilStainton]

Actually birds have a high wing loading for their size (look up span loading, or cubic wing loading), not a low one. What gives them an advantage is their active control, variable geometry and ability to flap whenever needed to add a bit of extra energy to the wing and get out of sink quickly.

[@Ken-fw9dh]

Thank you - I've been looking for a chart like yours for yonks. Most informative explination of glider dynamics

[@PureGlide]

Glad it was helpful! Cheers

[@HotelPapa100]

Would have been nice to include some of the vintage gliders, to see what our forebears had to work with. A Grunau Baby, say, a Minimoa, or a Ka 6

[@Halli50]

I have been through the whole spectrum, beginning with the original 4:1 Rogallo wing in 1973 up through high-performance hang gliders and early paragliders and even more than a passing acquaintance with regular gliders (never really high-performance gliders, though). While I have had more than one encounter with "an unintentional glider", i.e. an 'engine' failure in a single-engine aircraft (well, 'pilot failure' actually, fuel exhaustion in one case and lubricating oil exhaustion in the second case, both being my own, personal screw-ups, no excuses available). The rest of my career was in multi-engine aircraft and, needless to say, my only 'engine failures' in those were in a simulator. True, they were almost always just after V1, but the worst that COULD happen was a sweaty ride around the compulsory IFR single-engine approach with a mandatory single-engine missed approach followed by another single-engine approach and landing at minimums. This is supposed to be a routine, but it is also takes a lot of concentration and effort! The absurd glide ratio of modern high-performance gliders is good for only one thing: To get you from one thermal to the next thermal, fast and with minimum altitude loss. That is long-distance thermaling territory only. For your everyday 'inadvertent' glider situation the glide ratio is a double edged sword. A sleek aircraft will allow you to glide further, but nailing a landing spot can be hard. A short-aspect-ratio aircraft like Piper PA-22 Tri-Pacer (aka the flying piano) will not have a great gliding range, but your landing spot will appear a LOT larger because of the steeper approach angle. The point: Whatever equipment you are flying, you will (if you are a good pilot) plan according to you aircraft's capabilities (or limitations). A good glide angle can be a boon - or a curse! The. birds will beat us any day, under any circumstances, they have control that we cannot even BEGIN to dream of!

[@PureGlide]

Exactly right re the birds! Thanks for your comments, sounds like you've got a heap of interesting experience. Cheers!

[@MassimoPugiDelta]

Hello Tim :) I'd like to bring up that a hang glider flex-wing top of the line can't never get to 16:1 glide ratio, perhaps you are referring to hang glider rigid-wing which is a different type of hang glider category. The rigid-wing has longer wing span and the pilot uses flaps as well as flaperons on the wings in order to control the flight, as opposed to hang glider flex-wing which has no contoll mechanism whatsoever: only by shifting the body wheight allows you to fly. The longer wing span of a rigid-wing requires mechanical flaperons in order to be able to roll the hang glider. In fact in competition they race under 2 different scoring charts. The most common type of hang glider is the flex-wing and can achieve aprox 13:1 glide ratio. Cheers!

[@PureGlide]

Hey thanks for the info!

[@MelindaGreen]

Rigid wings are still hang gliders. And the difference between them isn't clear, as one can add more and more rigidity in a smooth transition towards greater performance. And I bet paragliders will start adding spars in the same quest.

[@MassimoPugiDelta]

@@MelindaGreen Hang gliders are divided in two category: Flex Wing and Rigid Wing and the difference is very well clear. Flex Wing means that although it's built by a rigid frame (Aluminum & Carbonfiber) yet the sail which makes up the wing skin is "soft" and therefore flexing and thus changing its initial shape, especially its wing profile. On the other hand Rigid Wing in the way is built never flexes by being hard as the skin of a sailplane and thus never changes the wing shape & profile so the difference is quite noticable as far as glide-ratio is concerned... that's why the two compete in two differeny category. Cheers! 😀🤙

[@MelindaGreen]

@@MassimoPugiDelta While I appreciate your reply, I disagree that the distinction is clear. Just look at leading edges for example. Most hang gliders you call "flex" have leading edges that are really quite ridged. Battens also vary from very flexible to very rigid. No matter how you try to draw a bright line between the two types of hang gliders, there will always be some that fall pretty much exactly on that line.

[@MassimoPugiDelta]

@@MelindaGreen I understand what you say, in fact if you touch it on the ground it feels sturdy and somewhat stiff but I ensure you that during flight the skin sail flexes a great deal! continuously changing its original shape... and all these characteristics comparing to a sailplane wing or a hang glider rigid-wing makes it fit into the Flex Wing category. For sure it's more rigid and stiff comparing to a paraglider, although a paraglider is currently consider a wing even though it is impossible to measure its aspect ratio because it isn't built on a aluminum frame but it's held together by multiple spectra or Kevlar lines. A paraglider aspect ratio can't be measured but is roughly calculated on its projected shadow which that too can change during flight. In conclusion my original comment was just about the most common hang gliders (flex-wing) top efficiency being almost 13:1 at most. Cheers 👋 👋

[@leetabor1957]

I would like to say I really enjoy your channel. The things you teach I use in my soaring, and helps me to fly better and safer. Thanks, and please continue to post these videos. Also, I like the quiet and mellow manner of your talks; very informal and at the same time both detailed and understandable.

[@PureGlide]

Hey thanks for the feedback! Much appreciated

[@iansimmonds9076]

Love your intros Timbodini! that sort of suprised look you have - like us 'KZbin lot' have wandered in on off the street and caught you just about to give a talk. Priceless! Much love dude…

[@PureGlide]

Thanks! 😃 I'm glad you noticed

[@ryanglover1940]

I agree the intro is good.

[@slowtalkingguy]

Thanks for the cameo 😁

[@PureGlide]

Ha You’re welcome! Which clip was it?!

[@slowtalkingguy]

@@PureGlide the paragliding one. If it's the day I'm thinking we spent a good while thermalling together. Looking forward to next time. See you out there.

[@ThalesMML]

Solar Impulse (long-range experimental solar-powered aircraft) has 37:1 glide ratio. Amazing video btw.

[@PureGlide]

Thanks!

[@CLdriver1960]

Wow! At one time, I thought 35:1 was high performance. Just goes to show how long I’ve been away from soaring. Great video!

[@PureGlide]

Thank you very much! Yeah they are amazing really :) although we've had high performance open class gliders for a long time now

[@lautoka63]

It's not too late to come back, you know.

[@CLdriver1960]

@@lautoka63 My thoughts exactly. I’ve already inquired about memberships at local gliding clubs. :)

[@chrisehmke1651]

Must be some time. I fly a 40 year old LS3-17 that does 43:1. Agreed, most of the time I fly it in the 15 meter configuration, with winglets.

[@CLdriver1960]

@@chrisehmke1651 indeed. I started flying sailplanes in 1974. After a long career in aviation, I’m ready to come back. I’ve already contacted two local gliding clubs about membership. 😊

[@WalterPaulKomarnicki]

never heard about glide ratios so well explained. brilliant presentation, thank you.

[@PureGlide]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jean-marcducommun8185]

Just recently mused about where these glide ratios have gone because back in time good ratios were in the mid 30 and as a model sailplane constructor and pilot we aimed to get as close as possible of the real ones. Amazed to see how high the performance of these Super-Orchids are today and the timing of your presentation couldn't be better. You perfectly answered my question!

[@PureGlide]

Awesome glad I could help! I did wonder if models, that are aerodynamically the same shape, would have the same glide ratios as the full size versions? I guess it must be close!

[@thearmouredpenguin7148]

I went solo in 1969 in a Slingsby T31, best performance - an awesome *18.5:1* at 39.5 kts.

[@PureGlide]

Still way better than a paraglider!

[@ricklederman]

Great video comparison! I didn't know about the Concordia, amazing. I own a Stemme S12, 53:1 with side by side seating, 25 meter span

[@PureGlide]

53:1, not bad at all!

[@dinos8557]

I have seen the Concordia in a contest at Hobbs New Mexico while crewing for another Canadian Pilot. Watched several launches and the wing sweep is amazing to see. The wingspan seen alongside a 15 meter ship is almost comical. Nice video.

[@PureGlide]

That would be quite the sight! Thanks for watching

[@treylem3]

Awesome ! Incredible glide ratios !

[@PureGlide]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@lautoka63]

Nice work as usual, Tim. Gimli glider was the consequence of confusion over fuel in kg or lbs: the engines stopped as they ran out of fuel. The 2017 OSTIV Congress was of the view that 100:1 is possible with boundary layer blowing.

[@PureGlide]

100:1 would be pretty insane

[@jazldazl9193]

@@PureGlide 75:1 is pretty insane

[@bigmuz_pilot]

Your content is awesome, thanks mate!

[@PureGlide]

Glad you enjoy it! Cheers

[@BuscaronsWalter]

See if you can correct in the subtitles for other languages that on several occasions it appears "paragliding" instead of "glider". The same, it is perfectly understood.

[@PureGlide]

Ah thanks, it can only be corrected if someone offers to translate the whole thing!

[@contessa.adella]

Great vid/explanation. Thanks for sharing.

[@PureGlide]

Hey thanks for watching!

[@pendox99]

Thank you from a pure flight enthusiast/inventor!

[@PureGlide]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@gliding_aviation1459]

9:19 Almost fooled me with the Ventus fight jet xD

[@PureGlide]

Haha I didn’t want people getting confused :)

[@adamviktorklimes405]

Nice overview

[@PureGlide]

Thanks!

[@gcorriveau6864]

This is a very informative comparison - thanks. I didn't realize how much more efficiently a 787 glides compared to earlier airliners. It'll help me "talk down" some nervous flyers. And enjoy our little club glider at a "mere" 30:1 ratio. ;-)

[@hj45lp]

Thank you, very informative and fun comparison! 👍😎

[@PureGlide]

Glad you liked it!

[@TheTonynoble]

Keep them coming Tim….. I am a dedicated fan. T.

[@PureGlide]

Cheers Tony!

[@TheBillzilla]

FWIW the 747 Classics that I used to fly managed about 18:1. A standard descent plan was a 'three to one' drop, or for every thousand feet up, you planned on going three nautical miles, or about 18,228' for every 1,000' in altitude. When we were heavy, you'd have to add a few miles as it was actually harder to get them to come down.

[@PureGlide]

Interesting thanks!

[@Chris.Davies]

In fact, the space shuttle glide ratio varied greatly throughout its flight profile, as should be obvious from the fact it starts to descend from a vacuum and has quite a high VNE. :)

[@PureGlide]

Yes! Slightly higher VNE than my glider that’s for sure

[@loganofnorth880]

You’re awesome thanks for interesting me into gliding! Trouble is there are so many amazing things to do in life and I don’t feel like I have enough time to do it all if you know that feeling. Anyways best of luck on your adventures

[@PureGlide]

You are so welcome! There's always KZbin :)

[@marijnfly]

Albatrosses apply the concept of 'dynamic soaring' when they dive and climb in and out of the winds between the waves, giving them an endless amount of energy to cross oceans.

[@ArjanHarre]

And they can land at 0 Knots :)

[@PureGlide]

Yeah you can do that in a glider too but tricky for ocean crossings :)

[@ArjanHarre]

@@PureGlide ... How effective is dynamic soaring in a manned glider? ... I've seen RC gliders reach insane speeds but the G forces would kill a human

[@PureGlide]

@@ArjanHarre there’s an airforce guy on KZbin that tried it! It’s not actually useful for gliders :)

[@HotelPapa100]

@@ArjanHarre Not really. Have you seen an albatross landing? (There's actually a clip in this video.) They are notoriously clumsy coming down. Their high wing loading shows. The depiction in the Disney movie Bernard and Bianca is not too far off.

[@Moggster23]

Well they say you learn something new every day and today I certainly did. I had no idea there were gliders with a 26 metres wingspan, I thought the maximum were 18 metres! Thanks for this very informative video.

[@PureGlide]

Thanks Moggy, glad you enjoyed it!

[@junuhunuproductions]

Thanks for this video!

[@PureGlide]

My pleasure!

[@chrisdavison9634]

Excellent - looking forward to placing my order for one of these "much lower cost" 18m JS3!

[@PureGlide]

Haha it's all relative!

[@user-sf9pq5ox7w]

nice vid! lol. my Schweitzer glider had 23:1 glide ratio, that i had years ago. amazing the advances.

[@PureGlide]

It really is amazing how far we have come

[@duobob]

I have been away from soaring for some time due to medical issues, but I really enjoyed the LAK-17a that I owned with another pilot which claimed a 50:1 best glide ratio, and also belonging to a syndicate of five of us who owned and shared a DuoDiscus which claimed a 44:1 glide ratio. Both very nice sailplanes. Having access to both aircraft allowed me to just about always find one of the other available to fly, and allowed access to both solo and two seat sailplanes. The group of caring and sharing pilot/owners worked out well, allowed flying solo or with a guest, and we took care of the sailplanes quite well. It was almost like owning the two sailplanes at a fraction of the costs, while sharing with friends.

[@PureGlide]

Thanks Bob, yes both great gliders!

[@RobManser77]

I've never flown anything of any description, but for some unknown reason You Tube brought me here. :-) I just wanted to say, as an experienced trainer, that your delivery and presentation is absolutely spot on - the sort of thing I aspire to. Edited to add: To a layman, these glide ratios are amazing and far greater than I was expecting. For example if you were towed to 2000 feet and never encountered any thermals at all, one of the decent gliders at the top of your chart could glide 30km 😲

[@PureGlide]

Thanks very much! Yeah it’s incredible how far those big gliders can go :)

[@jshrawder49]

Great information I had no idea that some of those planes had that much glide distance.

[@PureGlide]

Awesome eh, cheers!

[@LAyellowdog]

Cool. Useful information! Thanks

[@PureGlide]

Glad it was helpful, and thanks for watching!

[@jorditrevole272]

Very interesting. Thank you.

[@PureGlide]

Welcome!

[@Chris-NZ]

Answered many questions I had about aviation :)

[@PureGlide]

Thanks for watching, we appreciate it

[@brianwhitaker6040]

Thanks Tim great stuff keep it up

[@PureGlide]

Cheers Brian!

[@rizen3467]

Thats an interesting topic! Nice video!

[@PureGlide]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@ThomasGreenhill]

Having about 300 hours in ASW-22BL I assure you that roll control rate is not as big a problem as yaw control rate... you can bank the glider right over relatively quickly, but due to adverse yaw you’d never get it to actually turn without pegging the rudder for a while before and after you put in the roll input

[@PureGlide]

Yeah true! Cheers for the comment

[@williamstoertz]

Thanks ~ things I've always wanted to know ~ and now we can be properly informed. Thanks again!

[@PureGlide]

Thanks for watching William!

[@williamstoertz]

@@PureGlide I really love your soaring videos. New Zealand from the vantage of Pure Glide has taken on new meaning for a lot of us!

[@colinkellynz]

What a great presentation. 75:1 I had no idea, amazing!

[@PureGlide]

Cool eh! As long as you like going in straight lines :)

[@shmaknapublar]

@@PureGlide I was reading the daily updates from the 2012 world championships when the guy in the Concordia showed what it could do. It was on the day with the best conditions that he cleaned everyone's clocks, when time looking for lift was minimal. :) Not the best all arounder but he definitely accomplished the goal of building the best glider. He needs almost as much runway as the Space Shuttle to land the damn thing. LOL I think he has a drag chute assisted landing procedure now.

[@asw22driver]

I own Dick's earlier venture, the 25.5m L/D 62 ASW22X.

[@FranzPinzonGroup]

Great video, Thanks!

[@PureGlide]

You're welcome!

[@BillPalmer]

Cool video. Great idea. I would have included the SGS 1-26 as the bottom rung glider - since there are still plenty of them around (at least in the USA, anyway)

[@PureGlide]

Haha yes sorry don’t know much about them!

[@horaciorivara1240]

Great comparison.

[@PureGlide]

Thanks!

[@horaciorivara1240]

@@PureGlideI fly in a Schweitzer 2-22, a brick, in a Standard Austria and Paraglider. The Paraglider in very very slow, buy you can take a small termik at only 30 meters high over the ground

[@davidbooth3067]

Good comparson Tim. I worked out the 737NG to be 17:1 but that was with residual idle thrust being produced on the way down so hard to determine the real L/D.

[@PureGlide]

There’s only one way to find out!

[@THYB737]

The engines will kill more gilde ratio than idle thrust equalizes it

[@mikedunn7795]

For the several last aircraft mentioned,isn't the proper term soaring plane? You use glider a lot,but that brings to mind a WW2 towed aircraft for inserting troops,which cannot gain altitude when released from the tow cable. Soaring planes can utilize thermals for extending their flights.

[@PureGlide]

Hi here in New Zealand we primarily use the term 'glider', while some places, in particular the USA, use 'sailplane' a lot. But we do use both interchangeably. I haven't ever used the term "Soaring plane" sorry! Cheers

[@sandernl4990]

Thank you for this! Glidr development has beeen astonishing since I stopped. Many vintage gliders are still being flown, it would be interesting to include a few, especially from the wood age, e.g. K6 or ASK13. Not much better than a Dreamliner, surprisingly! I did my first solo flight in a Slingsby Prefect, which had a sink ratio more like your Cessna!

[@PureGlide]

Yeah I probably should have included a wooden glider or two, never mind, an exercise for the viewer!!

[@mikeonb4c]

Lovely video but would be great if some marker vintage (maybe the best vintage l/d) and current wood fabric gliders included. Also, saying what speeds these machines achieve best l/d at as well as their min sink rates and a liitle explanation of how that might impact distance that can be covered, would be great. A mk2 version of the video maybe ;-) p.s. just love those perfect clouds at ?Omarama - I only get to fly those on Condor 2 😎😆

[@PureGlide]

@@mikeonb4c Thanks Mike, noted. Those cloud are from Matamata! We all landed far too early that day :)

[@mikeonb4c]

@@PureGlide Really enjoy your videos and I reckon there's another interesting shortie you could make as a sort of answers to questions arising from part 1 👍

[@THYB737]

Sorry but Ka6 is actually much better than Dreamliner with 1:27

[@robertherndon4351]

A lot of pilots here in the States still fly 1-26s (22-1 on a good day) and older gliders with similar performance. They still do very well, although going upwind is quite a challenge because their best glide speed is quite slow. The speed at which best glide occurs is important (higher is usually better) as is the slowest speed it can reasonably fly (slower means it can turn smaller circles, important for working thermals, which are often small). Airliners have decent glide ratios, but those occur at high speeds, which means they descend like rocks and have fairly limited time before they must land.

[@harryspeakup8452]

Hah! 32:1 is still a pretty hot ship in the context of my flying: it's the top end of the range of most of the gliders that I've flown - most of my time is K-8b. I am impressed to learn that hang gliders can do 18:1 now, that puts them right up with some nice old thing like a Grunau IIb

[@PureGlide]

Yeah what I didn’t mention is it matters more where you out it in the sky! In sink they all come down real quick

[@Johan-ex5yj]

Nice to see a comparison of all the gliders in the world. Wow, 28m wingspan is insane! Gliders seem to also be going in the opposite direction with the new (since 2015) 13.5m class. I’m interested in FES gliders, so was just yesterday reading about the mini LAK-FES. Pretty amazing that they can now get a L/D of 44 out of a 13.5m wing! For more info look at: Mini and Me Soaring February 2019

[@PureGlide]

Agreed! Although 28m is definitely not normal, typical is 15 and 18m wingspans. I don't quite understand the 13m gliders, as it would cost almost the same to build a 13m glider as a 15m glider! So why bother?

[@drewlawrence696]

So my low AR PG has the same GR as a Cessna 172, interesting 👍

[@boksininkas_ltukaras5005]

Lak-20 also a 26 meter oppen class glyder has 60:1 ratio, love to see that bird fly, what an awesome video comparison of diferent glyde ratios. P.s. you got new subscriber :-)

[@PureGlide]

Thanks for the sub!

[@ben3989]

The albatross is just an amazing nature idea. They mostly just fly.

[@PureGlide]

A bit lower than the gliders do too...

[@soliv27]

@@PureGlide sure but their ability to do 'dynamic flight' using wind gradient is awesome. Plus they don't need a special gear. There is great experiment with r/c glider on dynamic flight, reaching very high speed, in particular conditions behind ridges. I didn't hear about inhabited gliders doing like the albatros.

[@DownhillAllTheWay]

@@soliv27 ... and the albatros is a motor-glider.

[@dpie4859]

I am absolutely chocked to see how well a commercial jet can glide. 20-1 is insane especially compared with a Cessna 8-1.

[@johngreenaway5736]

Very interesting and I'm enjoying your channel. For comparison, do you know what the glide ratio was for the Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawk?

[@moontan91]

the Albatross can stay aloft for weeks or months, sleeping on the wing. they can travel thousands of kilometers via dynamic soaring. they expend as nearly little energy flying as they do at rest. : )

[@PureGlide]

Yeah they are amazing!

[@ianlane6700]

These glide ratios are all based on flying in still air. Other things come into play, such as tailwinds and headwinds which will extend or reduce the glider's range. If conditions are thermic, it's possible to 'dolphin' along to take advantage of energy lines and cloud streets, to cover great distances without stopping to turn which will significantly increase your cross-country speed.

[@PureGlide]

Absolutely correct! All of that to come in future videos :)

[@billymanners9629]

In paragliding (with much lower speeds) wind is a big deal. A headwind can mean that the speed bar (which increases speed at the expense of glide slope) actually increases your glide slope over ground.

[@etolip63]

Nice pictures and interesting comparison but I think it is very important to compare the best glide ratio by indicating the corresponding air speed ;-) good flights

[@PureGlide]

Yes that'll be a whole other video!

[@oldineamiller9007]

There is another aspect in which a paraglider comes very closed to a bird. When they are still sitting on the ground you would not expect this thing would be able to fly. But the very moment the bird spreads its wings and the cloth of the paraglider gets his form by the air filling up its chambers, then suddenly the magic happens. "Hey, it has wings!" and "hey, it can actually fly!"

[@PureGlide]

Good thought, cheers!

[@oldineamiller9007]

@@PureGlide Thanks. It was a flight instructor who told me.

[@petemulhearn7787]

I did my first solo in in 1967 in a Schleicher K4. I think it had a glide ratio of around 15:1. From a 1,500 ft winch launch it wasn't so much a circuit but more of a spiral dive! I later flew a Grunau Primary which had no cockpit and a glide ratio of about 7:1. Exciting? Yes! Back then 20:1 was a hotship.

[@PureGlide]

Yeah and you can still go places with 20:1! Just not quite as far :)

[@Shamdouh1]

I learned so much today

[@PureGlide]

Good to hear!!

[@FPVREVIEWS]

Of course, how far a glider can go also depends on it's speed, so ability to penetrate wind. it will not matter in all circumstances, but in some will make a huge difference. and what not many people talk about is sink rate, which can help you stay in the air the longest from a given height in still air, and take the best advantage of a thermal if you happen to be in one. if it is a powered glider, low sink rate will help it to climb at a higher rate, use less total power, and stay in the air much longer. same principles go for powered aircraft. great considerations to think about. great video! thx!

[@kahp23]

very interesting thank you

[@PureGlide]

No no, thank you!

[@rogerclyde2720]

Really good

[@PureGlide]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@MENSA.lady2]

I did my first solo in a Slingsby T21B maybe 1 in 18 at best but I survived the experience.

[@PetrPolach]

1:8 is a nice to have GL of paraglider 1:10,5 for 2 liner 1:14.5 is for a hangglider average, calm air

[@PureGlide]

Thanks!

[@christopherstevenson9737]

Fun comparison. But I think birds have the distinct advantage since they can flap their wings to stay aloft... not so for gliders! I’m forever jealous of hawks and vultures- able to stay up on the tiniest of thermal! I watched a vulture glide for about 3 miles, never flapped its wings!

[@PureGlide]

Yeah they do have a few advantages :)

[@jimpike7445]

You're giving the Gimli Glider a bad wrap. I was a captain on them at Air Canada and actually flew it after the Gimli event. It's glide ratio is about 20:1 according to Boeing. I now fly a Silent2 Electro self launching glider with a 40:1 glide ratio.

[@PureGlide]

Hi Jim, thanks for commenting! Oh that is quite a difference, I got the 12:1 off the Wikipedia page, although that's the actual measured glide, not the theoretical best glide. So a bit unfair to use that in this comparison, as all the rest are theoretical glide ratios :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

[@jimpike7445]

I was on the DC9 at the time of the Gimli glide. They decided to put us through a double engine failure in the simulator with no restart. I guess my glider experience paid off with a successful "deadstick landing" 8>)

[@rocketplane8862]

*Laughs in Schweizer* I trained in a 2-33A and am doing my initial hours building in a 1-26. I know Schweizers are a lot more common in North America; many U.S. and Canadian glider pilots train in them. They both top out at about 23:1. 30:1 seems like the world when you're flying one. Also, as a fun fact, the best powered aircraft is probably the Rutan Global Flier at ~37:1. Unsurprisingly, it has many glider-like features.

[@tombouie]

Thks for keeping it simple; & then a negative glide ratio balloon is the ultimate glider (yeaps, I dos cheap ;)

[@PureGlide]

😂

[@Eigil_Skovgaard]

I remember how it was to put a Nimbus glider together. Each wing was in two sections and they were HEAVY to handle on the ground. But about 60:1 in the air. I once ran out of thermal on the last leg of a triangle, and while I was struggling at 300 meters in the club's LS4, a Nimbus with two persons passed me about 30 meters lower gliding in a straight path - not towards my club site about 5 kilometers away but towards the nearest club about 12-15 kilometers away. I had to land in a sugar beet field while the Nimbus made it home.

[@PureGlide]

Yes it sure is handy sometimes!

[@fredread9216]

Amazing.

[@PureGlide]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@StickandGlider]

Very cool

[@PureGlide]

Thanks!

[@sidtp7307]

The iconic Schweizer 2-22 (17:1) and 1-26 (23:1) have much lower ratios. If you started flying in the 80’s or earlier, ratios in the mid 20’s were the norm and 30 and above were ‘high performance’. I’ve some great memories of the 1-26 as it was so light and easy to fly.

[@PureGlide]

Yeah times sure change quick!

[@davisjugroop3782]

Hopefully in the future, photovoltaic cells, batteries can be added to help give a little bit more altitude.

[@PureGlide]

Funnily enough they do already!

[@davisjugroop3782]

@@PureGlide thanks for the info.

[@mitseraffej5812]

I fly a Boeing 737. Modern airplanes have a flight path angle indicator. With the throttles closed in still air it shows about 2.5 degrees with a clean wing which equates to about 22/1

[@PureGlide]

Hi Mit, thanks for sharing! very interesting

[@mitseraffej5812]

@@PureGlide After the Hudson River miracle the airline I worked for included total engine failure in simulator training sessions. Very few managed a successful outcome, I didn’t.

[@elfenmagix8173]

A Flying Squirrel has a Glide Ratio of 100:1, but they are short distance flyers. And a condor/vulture has a Glide Ratio of over 70:1 as they spend the day circling about without flapping their wings. Their problem is that they are high altitude flyers getting there is an issue for them without a thermal. But once they are up there, over 10k ft. They stay up there.

[@PureGlide]

I’m not sure I believe that about the both the flying squirrel and the vulture. The flying squirrel must involve jumping somehow and the condor is using thermals, so they can stay in the air indefinitely, but in still air, without flapping their wings, it won’t be 70:1!

[@PureGlide]

Squirrel is 1:1.9 ! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_flying_squirrel

[@LiiMuRi]

The glide ratio given for a paraglider is a bit generous. Typical pilots might see something like 8-10:1. But the upside is the ease of transport. You just pack it up and carry it in your back where ever you want to go 😊

[@PureGlide]

Yeah those are “best” glide ratios

[@techstuf4637]

Mind blowing.

[@PureGlide]

It is really!

[@techstuf4637]

Scales and methods of efficiency have always intrigued me. I was unaware of any gliders with a glide ratio that high. Somewhat related are the velomobiles that at Stuttgart, went directly upwind at twice wind speed solely by power of the wind; and the Blackbird team whose wind powered craft traveled directly downwind at nearly 3 times wind speed by wind power alone.

[@PureGlide]

@@techstuf4637 yes the America’s Cup boats are currently doing 3 times the wind speed, just amazing. And NZ just won! So that’s exciting

[@TylerFun]

10/10 intro bud

[@PureGlide]

Cheers!

[@Michael-jm2tn]

Related to Ratio 60:1 Im pretty sure you are talking about the ASH25 instead of ASH 26, aren't you? Thanks for all your vid's, makes knowledge and fun! Cheers Michael from Germany

[@PureGlide]

Maybe, can't remember! I think I pulled off the stats from Wikipedia

[@Hangglide]

Thanks for the video! I am a hangglider pilot. I don’t think modern hangglider can reach 16:1. Maybe in theory? With the drag from the harness and all wires, I think we are just 10:1 at the best. When we looking for landing zone, we will keep 3:1 to 5:1 glide ratio in mind for safest choice.

[@PureGlide]

Yes all these numbers are best glides, and that was the best I could find of ANY hang glider. In practice you have to assume you'll be flying in some sort of sinking air as well, which greatly reduces the glide ratio. So that's why 3:1 and 5:1 glide ratio for landing is sensible :)

[@robertharvey6725]

Canada is actually the leader in fuel starved jetliners gliding to a safe landing. In 2001 Air Transat Flight 236 was on its way from Toronto to Lisbon overnight on Aug. 23-24 with 291 passengers and crew of 13. The plane was an Airbus A330-200. It ran out of fuel due to a leak and the aircraft glided 98 miles from a height of 32,000 ft to a safe landing in the Azores. Something like 16:1 glide ratio

[@gregcullen8744]

I like this video. I would like to get a chart of your summary.

[@PureGlide]

Hi sure I can send it to you if you want. Email me, address at pear.co.nz

[@briangarcia8986]

Hello again from Michigan in the US. and you bring up another great subject. Where do you think the next L/D gains in sailplane design will come from. Maybe elastic control surfaces to eliminate the gaps or some kind of vacuum system to delay laminar separation? Just asking take care and keep the videos coming.

[@otsokivivuori7726]

It might even be that we go the way of the ventus 3, where max l/d was not given as high importance as high speed and cross country performance

[@PureGlide]

I'm not an expert in aerodynamic design, but surely golf ball dimples all over the glider would help! :)

[@briangarcia8986]

@@otsokivivuori7726 Your comment reminds me of a banker. Mess with the numbers and they'll think their just not flying well! LOL

[@briangarcia8986]

@@PureGlide Hmm you know they do have an illegal ball that has different sized dimples guaranteed to fly straight. That might be just the thing I need to keep that damn string centered!

[@PureGlide]

@@briangarcia8986 Haha good idea

[@germanstorms2785]

Hi there! Im a glider pilot and this season im going to do my first solo. These videos really help flying more save 👍

[@PureGlide]

Good luck!

[@mateuszsp8ebc691]

Hi Tim. I think that 11.3 GR of a paraglider is a little bit exaggerated. To be fair since few years manufacturers usually haven't even mentioned glide ratio nor speeds at all! In case of my Skywalk Tequila 4 I have things like aspect radio, wingspan, full line plan but not speed at all. Polish company 'Dudek paragliders' shows minimal sink rate and trim / max speed but not GR. All that is mostly caused by lack of good measurements techniques, and due to low airspeed GR don't even matter as much as conditions Youre flying in. For Dudek Optic 2 which is an intermediate wing minimum sink is 1 m/s (with uncertainty of .2m/s) and the trim speed is 10m/s with uncertainty about .5m/s. This give us GR of 9 if we take into account that minimum sink rate is at airspeed slightly lower than trim. This is what seems to be a right answer for a question 'how far the paraglider can fly'. About 9 to 10 GR seems reasonable for average EN-B wing of "mainline" manufacturer like Skywalk, Ozone, Advance, Dudek etc. Of course there is stuff like Ozone ENZO 2, which might have even more than 11.3 but this is full competition rig for very highly skilled pilots. It very easily collapses and if collapse it usually end with throwing a reserve as it is very hard to restore normal flight afterwards. But anyway. Paragliding is not about poor performance in flight :) Paragliding is all about 'magic moments' You get during the flight which the glider doesn't give You :)

[@PureGlide]

Yeah I was looking for the best glide ratio of a paraglider, not what’s typical. Cheers!